Some people that I respect mentioned that my last post struck them as universalizing in a problematic way. They mentioned that for some people BDSM can be unhealthy or maladaptive. they wanted to be sure that I wasn't getting ahead of myself comparing into anti-SM theory to the theory behind conservatives recommending reparative therapy for gay people.
So I want to make this perfectly clear. I don't think that SM is wonderful for everyone at every point in their lives. I do believe that some people use SM to self harm. I do believe that some people bottom or submit because they believe that they are inferior or unworthy. I also believe that some people use sex and sexual pleasure, whether from SM or from non SM sex, in ways that are unhealthy for them.
However, I believe that this is all beside the point. Look, once again, at many of the reparative therapists' reasons for objecting to what they call "The gay lifestyle." They often cite such behaviors as promiscuity, drug use, partying, and shallowness as reasons why such a lifestyle does not ultimately satisfy the people who participate in it. People are actually looking for a lifetime monogamous relationship that is deep and intimate.
The problems with this are twofold. The first problem is obvious: not everyone wants monogamy, intimacy, or relationships. The second problem is different. For many people, the party circuit is indeed unsatisfying. However, this is not what being gay is about. A gay man may enjoy those things, but he may not. Being gay only means that he is attracted to other men, not that he will embrace particular social behaviors or not.
And I think a similar confusion is going on when people say "Wait, Trinity! You have to acknowledge that for some people, SM is an unhealthy fixation." no, I don't, because my point is not whether SM is always wonderful for everyone, but whether a particular sort of social constructionist theory captures what the SM experience is about for everyone.
It does not. Yes, for some people SM is a maladaptive coping strategy. But this does not mean that SM sex is fundamentally about self-harm, any more than sex, as a whole, for all humans is about self-harm. I'm sure we've all met someone who we at some point thought was using his sexuality in a way that was ultimately damaging to him. But very few people would say that he needs to give up sexuality. That therapy designed to make him asexual is wise.
I do think that some people who do, and enjoy, SM are not orientationally sadomasochistic. (For example, some try it only because a lover suggested it, but find they like it. Some value being sexually "adventurous" and see trying SM as one part of this. And some, yes, may try it because of pressure, or low self-esteem, or trauma.) I also think that some subset of these people who are sadomasochistically active may be so because they are dealing with an unresolved issue or problem rather than because it is actually good for them. SM may be a horribly bad idea for these people, and giving up SM may, therefore, be a positive step for them, in a way that I don't think "praying away the gay" can ever be for anyone.
However, this does not reveal anything about SM being bad. It reveals something humans have always known about sex and sexuality: that sex can be quite emotionally powerful, and that sometimes we can harness or use that emotional potency in ways that are actually bad for us.
Saying that I believe that the underpinnings of anti-SM "radical" "feminist" theory are disturbingly similar to the underpinnings of the theory fueling an obviously life-denying organization like NARTH is not saying that any given person who gives up BDSM is unhealthy for it. For some people, that is a positive step.
But that's due to personal factors, and it's certainly not due to my orientation being a "patriarchal lifestyle." (I couldn’t resist snark there…:)
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Sunday, 9 November 2008
Theories and Commonalities
I spent some time yesterday reading over the blog of Truth Wins Out, an organization dedicated to "fighting right-wing lies and the ex-gay fraud." As I was reading through some of the discussions and descriptions of reparative therapy and its proponents, I was struck by some commonalities I see between the theories underpinning that movement and the "radical feminist" theories that claim that SM desires are imposed by the patriarchy and bad for women.
Here's TWO's description of NARTH, a a self described “non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality":
First, the "there is no space for" remark. The most strident of the anti-SM feminists also don't usually claim right out that no one should do BDSM. They just remind us that living to our full potential would not include doing BDSM, and that those of us who continue to do it are misguided and confused.
Second, the comment about "peace." This is a big one. According to these sorts of "radical feminist," it's perfectly within our rights to behave as we want, but we can't possibly be happy. Being subordinated to men is a bad state -- and even female tops like me are supposedly "subordinated" to our partners, since only men could ever really want this stuff -- and some secret part of us, deep inside, knows it. We're not content, somewhere inside ourselves, and in five years or so we'll come to the revelations that saved the ex-BDSMer feminists and be unable to deny that we "weren't at peace."
This is a particularly nefarious one. No human being is ever totally at peace with herself over everything. That makes it quite easy for manipulative techniques like these to get their hooks in people. If you're sad, if you're confused, particularly if you're currently unhappy sexually, it's very easy to remember what someone, be they radical feminist or reparative therapist, said to you about not being truly at peace with yourself. It's very easy for that, in turn, to trigger a "purge" if you're insecure: tossing out your sex toys and vowing to "find peace."
I haven't here quoted the bit from the website describing what NARTH takes the origins of homosexuality to be. First, we've all likely heard it: distant fathers, dominant mothers, and other gender-nonconforming setups in our home life. Second, the specifics of that are totally unlike any "radical feminist" theory about anything.
But the similarity I see even there is that the "not at peace" sexuality is taken to be socially constructed. For NARTH, homosexuality comes from being around gender nonconforming people and copying them. For "radical feminists" of this stripe, it comes from being around patriarchy. In both cases, the sexuality cannot be inborn.
It's not only that, though. I personally do think both homosexuality and BDSM orientation can be inborn, but that they need not be, and that using "inborn or not" as the barometer of whether the sexuality is okay or not is beyond stupid. It's that these theories of social construction/nurture are taken to be obvious and beyond reproach.
No one can really, truly prove for sure that social environment doesn't shape sexuality, sometimes radically. We believe that the "mother" theory is stupid as an explanation for homosexuality because there are tons of people it doesn't fit. I believe the "patriarchy" theory is stupid as an explanation for BDSM orientation because I've met tons of people who don't connect it to gender at all.
But unlike the "mother" theory, there's no way to say "this is what happened outside of patriarchy." If you accept their understanding of patriarchy as something that not only affects but shapes every part of our psyches, there is no way to prove them wrong either.
But notice, from what I say above, that this doesn't actually suggest that they are correct. It only looks like it does. Just like there's no way out of the claim that people who do BDSM are unhappy or "not truly at peace" because no human ever is, there's no way out of the claim that people's sexualities aren't fruits of patriarchy because no one is free of it either.
But all that that line of thinking indicates is that we have no idea what human sexuality would look like free of patriarchy. I've seen scads of discussions in feminist spaces about whrther there'd be SM in utopia. They've never come to resolution, for the very same reason: all that any of us, pro or anti, can do in such discussions is speculate. I speculate that SM would still exist, because pain play isn't about power, and that D/s would still exist, because power play isn't about injustice. Someone else speculates that pain and power are attractive because of oppression, and no one in Utopia would dream of it.
Problem so totally solved, there.
Third, both NARTH and the "radical feminists" are careful to inform everyone that they don't intend to impose on anyone. They acknowledge that their treatments or theories are not for everyone. Here's NARTH:
The thing about this, though, is that neither NARTH's nor the "radical feminists'" theories are as neutral as they claim. No, no one is compelling anyone to seek change, if we do these folks the courtesy of taking them at face value when they say that. However, their theories assert that you're broken. If you're gay, it's because something's wrong in your life and you are so desperate for closeness with people of the same gender that you act out sexually, desperate for their attention. If you're kinky, it's because you have been so supersaturated with the message of male dominance and female submission that you're incapable of sexually relating to others in a positive way.
And that, in the end, is the big commonality: the theory that people are broken and need fixing. Homosexuality supposedly comes from family dysfunction; BDSM is often described as the result of abuse, despite many people enjoying BDSM who were never abused and many people who were abused thinking they had BDSM interests before any abuse happened. Corollary to this is the idea that as you heal, your sexuality may change.
I've spoken before about how damaging I feel this is, and I think it cuts straight to the heart of both what's wrong with reparative therapy and what's wrong with "radical feminist theory" about how abuse affects us. I quote from myself, elsewhere:
Here's TWO's description of NARTH, a a self described “non-profit, educational organization dedicated to affirming a complementary, male-female model of gender and sexuality":
At the Feb. 10, 2007 Love Won Out conference in Phoenix, the “secular” therapist told the audience, “When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.”Now, obviously this is religion-based, rather than based on a theory that sexuality is socially constructed in a way that's bad for women. But there's a lot that I see that I find very familiar.Confronted with protesters at their 2006 national conference in Orlando, NARTH instructed its members to “sing a hymn or pray instead,” according to Mother Jones magazine, in its Sept.-Oct. 2007 issue.
...Dr. Nicolosi has said in his first book, “Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality that, “I do not believe that any man can ever be truly at peace in living out a homosexual orientation.”
The late Dr. Socarides, who has a gay son that once served as President Bill Clinton’s gay liaison, told The Washington Post on August 14, 2007, “Homosexuality is a psychological and psychiatric disorder, there is no question about it. It is a purple menace that is threatening the proper design of gender distinctions in society.”
First, the "there is no space for" remark. The most strident of the anti-SM feminists also don't usually claim right out that no one should do BDSM. They just remind us that living to our full potential would not include doing BDSM, and that those of us who continue to do it are misguided and confused.
Second, the comment about "peace." This is a big one. According to these sorts of "radical feminist," it's perfectly within our rights to behave as we want, but we can't possibly be happy. Being subordinated to men is a bad state -- and even female tops like me are supposedly "subordinated" to our partners, since only men could ever really want this stuff -- and some secret part of us, deep inside, knows it. We're not content, somewhere inside ourselves, and in five years or so we'll come to the revelations that saved the ex-BDSMer feminists and be unable to deny that we "weren't at peace."
This is a particularly nefarious one. No human being is ever totally at peace with herself over everything. That makes it quite easy for manipulative techniques like these to get their hooks in people. If you're sad, if you're confused, particularly if you're currently unhappy sexually, it's very easy to remember what someone, be they radical feminist or reparative therapist, said to you about not being truly at peace with yourself. It's very easy for that, in turn, to trigger a "purge" if you're insecure: tossing out your sex toys and vowing to "find peace."
I haven't here quoted the bit from the website describing what NARTH takes the origins of homosexuality to be. First, we've all likely heard it: distant fathers, dominant mothers, and other gender-nonconforming setups in our home life. Second, the specifics of that are totally unlike any "radical feminist" theory about anything.
But the similarity I see even there is that the "not at peace" sexuality is taken to be socially constructed. For NARTH, homosexuality comes from being around gender nonconforming people and copying them. For "radical feminists" of this stripe, it comes from being around patriarchy. In both cases, the sexuality cannot be inborn.
It's not only that, though. I personally do think both homosexuality and BDSM orientation can be inborn, but that they need not be, and that using "inborn or not" as the barometer of whether the sexuality is okay or not is beyond stupid. It's that these theories of social construction/nurture are taken to be obvious and beyond reproach.
No one can really, truly prove for sure that social environment doesn't shape sexuality, sometimes radically. We believe that the "mother" theory is stupid as an explanation for homosexuality because there are tons of people it doesn't fit. I believe the "patriarchy" theory is stupid as an explanation for BDSM orientation because I've met tons of people who don't connect it to gender at all.
But unlike the "mother" theory, there's no way to say "this is what happened outside of patriarchy." If you accept their understanding of patriarchy as something that not only affects but shapes every part of our psyches, there is no way to prove them wrong either.
But notice, from what I say above, that this doesn't actually suggest that they are correct. It only looks like it does. Just like there's no way out of the claim that people who do BDSM are unhappy or "not truly at peace" because no human ever is, there's no way out of the claim that people's sexualities aren't fruits of patriarchy because no one is free of it either.
But all that that line of thinking indicates is that we have no idea what human sexuality would look like free of patriarchy. I've seen scads of discussions in feminist spaces about whrther there'd be SM in utopia. They've never come to resolution, for the very same reason: all that any of us, pro or anti, can do in such discussions is speculate. I speculate that SM would still exist, because pain play isn't about power, and that D/s would still exist, because power play isn't about injustice. Someone else speculates that pain and power are attractive because of oppression, and no one in Utopia would dream of it.
Problem so totally solved, there.
Third, both NARTH and the "radical feminists" are careful to inform everyone that they don't intend to impose on anyone. They acknowledge that their treatments or theories are not for everyone. Here's NARTH:
NARTH respects each client's dignity, autonomy and free agency.I hear something similar from "radical feminists." They are careful to remind any pro-BDSM person they debate with that they have no interest in preventing us from doing BDSM and no personal investment in any individual coming to agree with their theories or to change sexual behavior or orientation. They say instead that they only hope to get more people thinking about where their desires come from and why they have them. I've even e-met a few who've told me they agree with "radical feminist" theories about where their desires come from and kinda wish they could change, but know they can't.We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential.
The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable.
We call on our fellow mental-health association to stop falsely claiming to have "scientific knowledge" that settles the issue of homosexuality. Instead, our mental-health associations must leave room for diverse understandings of the family, of core human identity, and the meaning and purpose of human sexuality.
The thing about this, though, is that neither NARTH's nor the "radical feminists'" theories are as neutral as they claim. No, no one is compelling anyone to seek change, if we do these folks the courtesy of taking them at face value when they say that. However, their theories assert that you're broken. If you're gay, it's because something's wrong in your life and you are so desperate for closeness with people of the same gender that you act out sexually, desperate for their attention. If you're kinky, it's because you have been so supersaturated with the message of male dominance and female submission that you're incapable of sexually relating to others in a positive way.
And that, in the end, is the big commonality: the theory that people are broken and need fixing. Homosexuality supposedly comes from family dysfunction; BDSM is often described as the result of abuse, despite many people enjoying BDSM who were never abused and many people who were abused thinking they had BDSM interests before any abuse happened. Corollary to this is the idea that as you heal, your sexuality may change.
I've spoken before about how damaging I feel this is, and I think it cuts straight to the heart of both what's wrong with reparative therapy and what's wrong with "radical feminist theory" about how abuse affects us. I quote from myself, elsewhere:
I don't in any way mean to suggest that I know better than that person [an ex-BDSMer who believed that her SM fantasies came from her abuse, and said that she replaced those fantasies with mental images of waterfalls] where her fantasies came from or how her healing should have gone. But I will say that personally, I found the assumption that healing from my trauma would involve no longer being a sadomasochist pretty harmful.In a nutshell, that's my major problem with both reparative therapy and anti-SM "radical feminism": this theory that you're broken, and if you just pray enough or "examine your desires" enough you'll heal, but that if you don't you must just be too hurt, too broken, too weak, or too easily seduced to get over it.
The people I relied on for mental health care told me that my fantasies came from my trauma, and that once I'd really healed, I'd not have them any more.
I spent so much time worrying about my sexuality not changing, of waterfalls or whatever else not replacing my self, that I didn't allow myself for years to take pride in the actual progress I was making toward healing. I became obsessed with the idea that my sexuality wasn't changing and therefore there was something wrong with me, even as I slowly felt better about myself, less inclined to self-harming (again, maybe to you the desire to do SM and to self-harm are the same, but in my experience they are very different), etc.
I think promoting the idea that SM fantasies are *always* scars from trauma is harmful.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Ren's defense of BDSM
The inimitable Renegade Evolution, giving voice to something I've been thinking for a while:
But I find myself wondering why there are so few names. I know several people who are ex-radical feminists (including myself, though my "radical feminism" was a bit different from what generally passes for it in the blogoverse, and a lot of people would claim I was doing it wrong, I'm sure.) They talk fairly often about the things they used to do, think, and like.
I very rarely see the same thing out of ex-BDSMers. I've never seen any of them volunteer anything like "My scene name was Slaveslut Lily," much less "Here's my old slavejournal, wherein I argued that 24/7 submission to men was totally feminist. Here are the inbetween posts, where I started to change my mind. Here's me now."
And I just wonder why that's so rare. Not because I doubt anyone's particular personal story, or think that it's anyone's duty to provide it. Rather, because I hear a lot of vague stories out of anti-SM feminists who say "I know a lot of people who escaped, and are really emotionally scarred." But if this is common, if this goes on a lot, one would think there'd be message boards, be webpages offering support to former submissives, or at least "post-submissive" blogs, or... something.
One would think that someone, somewhere along the line, would be more public about this, like the ex-radfems I know have tended to be about what it was like to be part of that community.
Which is what leads me to wonder, like Ren, whether most of these ex-SMers were involved in the community as a whole, or whether they just met a man who suggested rope to a nervous girlfriend who wanted to be GGG. It's not that that's not BDSM, and it's not that that's not worrisome. It's just that when they then, as many do, start discussing the Scene, I start to get skeptical.
Particularly of the claims that everything in the world is M/f. Now, I do think that much of the time, heterosexual circles and gay and lesbian circles are cut off from one another. Gay leather and straight leather aren't all that connected.
But as a person who has mainly done F/m and some F/f, I can confidently say I've very rarely felt unwelcome anywhere. There was one party I went to, held by a small group I didn't usually attend, where I felt like F/m dynamics were unwelcome and felt uncomfortable. (I actually had people telling me my way of doing things weirded them out because submission was "womanly," etc.) But that was once!
So... yeah. I want more information from anyone who's *willing* to volunteer it about what their community was, what it was like, how large it was. Were they involved in major orgs, like Janus, TES, APEX, Black Rose, or were they at home with a Daddy they'd met on CollarMe last week? I really want to know, because without *anyone at all* volunteering such information... I remain skeptical. Not skeptical that any one person was abused, pressured, or hurt, but skeptical of the claims that a lot of submissive women get out and realize they were involved in something inherently damaging.
Which I see now and again from the ex-es.
Why do I defend and talk about BDSM fairly often? After all, I, personally, am not even into BDSM except for on very, very rare occasions and, why yes, for money. It’s not my thing…it has similarities to my thing, but the differences are vast and noticeable to anyone who actually knows anything about BDSM. I’m a crappy submissive because really, I don’t have the right attitude or wiring for it. I’m a crappy dominant because I am, sexually, a selfish and greedy asshole. The whole service aspect, or aftercare, or the endless and needed negotiation, the often seriousness required, and bonding, so on? Let’s put it this way: I totally fail. F – report to the first row of remedial education fail. I would probably be worse at being in a healthy and respectful and fulfilling BDSM relationship than I ever was at algebra, and that is saying something. And really, aside from some of the cool looking outfits, equipment, and dungeons, BDSM does not appeal to me. It’s too complicated, ordered, ritualized, and rules-laden for me. It is in no way unhinged and chaotic enough for my tastes. As I, and countless BDSM’ers have said before, there is a huge difference between what they do (BDSM) and what I’m into (rough/gonzo/porny sex).This, exactly. I don't doubt people who say they had bad experiences doing BDSM. I'm sure that some people are into it precisely because they see it as an excuse to be selfish, be cruel, be rapists and get away with it: "But you're my slave!"
But I still talk about it and defend it for a reason…a few really. One, I do not think what I do and enjoy sexually is better than what anyone else does, but people into BDSM, just like those into gonzo style sex, or swinger style sex, or countless other less than mainstream forms of sex and sexuality, are marginalized and stigmatized- rather heavily and relentlessly. Two, there is a tendency for people without in depth information, or without any consideration towards the words of those actually involved, to look at a brief snippet of what people into BDSM do an label it as abuse. There are too many ill-informed calls for them to examine (as if they have not), and sure enough, way too much speculation and usage of universals.
And yes, sure enough, I have read words out of people, women specifically, who say they were really into BDSM, loved it at the time, left it, and looking back, see how abusive and horrible it was. Okay. I’ll take them at their word…but just as folk question the kinky people endlessly, well, I have questions to ask as well, because sure enough, do some assholes use the cover of BDSM (or gonzo style, or swinging, or whatever) to be abusive fuckheads? Why yes, they sure do…are they the majority? I tend to think not…so, this is what I want to know:
1: Were you, as an ex BDSM’er (or whatever) engaged in full scene, part of a community, or is it something a lover, solo, worked you into? Did you go to clubs, or play parties, or was it something engaged in solely in their/your home?
2: Did you meet your D/s on line?
3: Were there negotiations, safe words, limits set?
4: Was your involvement in whatever kink then used by said partner to shame or isolate you from others?
5: Were you denied access to friends, family, or other people in the fetish community?
6: Were your boundaries and comfort levels ignored?
7: Did you endure the “kink” or “rough stuff” merely to get the attention, praise, or “love” from your partner?
8: Did you get into this life style because, for whatever reasons, you thought abuse and pain were the best you could do or all that you deserved? Did your partner make you feel that way?
9: Did your partner threaten you with telling the world about your involvement in kink, or posting photos of you, or whatever else to keep you where you were and doing what they wanted?
Guess what? In this case, I sort of feel like saying “Oh shit, you’re doing it wrong”. And I hate to say that. I do, I fucking loathe those words. Hate ‘em. But those sorts of experiences do not, to the best of my knowledge, at all capture the spirit and what is really intended in BDSM (or whatever other kinky stuff a lot of folk are into), and do sound like manipulation on the part of an abusive asshole…and sure enough, that sort of shit is never going to be loving or empowering or healthy. It is also in no way typical of what goes on with most kinksters. There are, you see, no universals.
And just for the record, if women are abused in droves in any sort of kinky scene, why is the protest of it by those women a virtual whisper? No, I am not questioning any ones experiences, but since women who are happily in the kink are forever and endlessly questioned, called out, taken to task, dismissed, and told to examine, I feel it is a fair question…after all, I do hate double standards in “feminism”.
And this is no way me trying to say “try it, you’ll like it”. Not in the least. If anything, I am all for women experiencing, doing, enjoying what they like, and not doing what they don’t like, on their own terms and via their own determination. Lord knows I’ve had more than one asshole Top type suggest that I, liking the gonzo sex, had truly not just evolved enough, or did not know what I really wanted, or liked, or needed, and sure enough, he could show me! Well, sorry, I ain’t into calling anyone master (unless the fee is damn fine) and my patience with people of those sorts (of either gender) is very, very thin. Sexual mercenaries make shitty subs, after all. So yes, I do know those types exist. But they are a rare breed, and to assume universals about all people into BDSM based on them, or the experiences of some women?
Ill advised and ill informed. Once again, I say such is shoddy schoolwork. But then again, happy BDSM’ers make not the impressive headline or study now, do they?
And now, herein this long and winding rant, is where the Renegade cringes and makes a confession/statement that she knows, one day, some how, some way, will come back to bite her in the ass. I’d even bet money on it, but I’m going to say it anyway:
Often, I see BDSM discussed in terms of rape, of sexual cruelty, of true psychopathic sadism, of true force, or true emotional abuse and humiliation, so on, so forth. If you’re looking for a true dark side of sex, well, you’re looking at the wrong kink. I see more of that in the swinger scene than I’ve ever seen in SSC BDSM communities. And (big cringe) as for as unhinged casual use of peoples bodies in the pursuit of sexual gratification…well, I think the gonzo style sorts make BDSM'ers look like virtual saints…I mean, they (BDSM'ers) tend to at least catch names of or like the people they are fucking…not always so in my social circles. But be that as it may:
There are no universals, and pretending that there are helps and empowers no one.
But I find myself wondering why there are so few names. I know several people who are ex-radical feminists (including myself, though my "radical feminism" was a bit different from what generally passes for it in the blogoverse, and a lot of people would claim I was doing it wrong, I'm sure.) They talk fairly often about the things they used to do, think, and like.
I very rarely see the same thing out of ex-BDSMers. I've never seen any of them volunteer anything like "My scene name was Slaveslut Lily," much less "Here's my old slavejournal, wherein I argued that 24/7 submission to men was totally feminist. Here are the inbetween posts, where I started to change my mind. Here's me now."
And I just wonder why that's so rare. Not because I doubt anyone's particular personal story, or think that it's anyone's duty to provide it. Rather, because I hear a lot of vague stories out of anti-SM feminists who say "I know a lot of people who escaped, and are really emotionally scarred." But if this is common, if this goes on a lot, one would think there'd be message boards, be webpages offering support to former submissives, or at least "post-submissive" blogs, or... something.
One would think that someone, somewhere along the line, would be more public about this, like the ex-radfems I know have tended to be about what it was like to be part of that community.
Which is what leads me to wonder, like Ren, whether most of these ex-SMers were involved in the community as a whole, or whether they just met a man who suggested rope to a nervous girlfriend who wanted to be GGG. It's not that that's not BDSM, and it's not that that's not worrisome. It's just that when they then, as many do, start discussing the Scene, I start to get skeptical.
Particularly of the claims that everything in the world is M/f. Now, I do think that much of the time, heterosexual circles and gay and lesbian circles are cut off from one another. Gay leather and straight leather aren't all that connected.
But as a person who has mainly done F/m and some F/f, I can confidently say I've very rarely felt unwelcome anywhere. There was one party I went to, held by a small group I didn't usually attend, where I felt like F/m dynamics were unwelcome and felt uncomfortable. (I actually had people telling me my way of doing things weirded them out because submission was "womanly," etc.) But that was once!
So... yeah. I want more information from anyone who's *willing* to volunteer it about what their community was, what it was like, how large it was. Were they involved in major orgs, like Janus, TES, APEX, Black Rose, or were they at home with a Daddy they'd met on CollarMe last week? I really want to know, because without *anyone at all* volunteering such information... I remain skeptical. Not skeptical that any one person was abused, pressured, or hurt, but skeptical of the claims that a lot of submissive women get out and realize they were involved in something inherently damaging.
Which I see now and again from the ex-es.
Monday, 27 October 2008
Carnival of Feminist Sexual Freedom and Autonomy Deadline Extended
Belledame asked me to post this and see if any of you lovelies are interested:
The deadline for submissions to the latest Carnival of Feminist Sexual Freedom and Autonomy has been extended until the 30th:
Submit stuff, folks. The last couple of incarnations of the Carnival have been a bit homogenous, IMO. I think it would be lovely for more weird people to send in more interesting things this time around.
The deadline for submissions to the latest Carnival of Feminist Sexual Freedom and Autonomy has been extended until the 30th:
So, yes, I'm [Belledame, that is] hosting this next edition. The scheduled date is for October 27. Because I suck and let time get away from me & forgot I have a paper due this week, I'd like to give a little more time for people to get their entries in; so unless Lina or anyone strenuously objects, I'm going to say: carnival goes up on Friday the 31st, deadline for submission midnight Oct. 30.
General guidelines for this carnival here.
Some thematic suggestions (suggestions only) for this edition:
-Halloween: "Trick or treat," or "come as you aren't." Costume, role-play, illusion, trickery, sugar: what roles do any of these play in sexuality? Make it personal or political or both.
-Day of the Dead: The veils are thin this time of year. Connections between sex and spirituality, and/or sex and the transcendent, if you prefer. (they call it "the little death" for a reason). Dark or light or anywhere in between.
-Election season in the U.S. Specific electoral battles such as Prop K in San Francisco, or more broad-ranging political pieces.
Also particularly interested in pieces exploring intersectionality with sexuality, including but not limited to: being of color, being queer, being genderqueer, having a trans body, having a disability, class issues, cultural issues, religion. Again, both personal and political.
Also, too, U.S. election notwithstanding, looking for pieces from folks outside the U.S. and particularly outside other Anglophone countries as well (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand).
Feel free to nominate your own work or someone else's. Multiple submissions are fine.
Send to:
belledame222 AT gmail DOT com
by October 30.
Good luck! Happy writing/reading.
General guidelines for this carnival here.
Some thematic suggestions (suggestions only) for this edition:
-Halloween: "Trick or treat," or "come as you aren't." Costume, role-play, illusion, trickery, sugar: what roles do any of these play in sexuality? Make it personal or political or both.
-Day of the Dead: The veils are thin this time of year. Connections between sex and spirituality, and/or sex and the transcendent, if you prefer. (they call it "the little death" for a reason). Dark or light or anywhere in between.
-Election season in the U.S. Specific electoral battles such as Prop K in San Francisco, or more broad-ranging political pieces.
Also particularly interested in pieces exploring intersectionality with sexuality, including but not limited to: being of color, being queer, being genderqueer, having a trans body, having a disability, class issues, cultural issues, religion. Again, both personal and political.
Also, too, U.S. election notwithstanding, looking for pieces from folks outside the U.S. and particularly outside other Anglophone countries as well (U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand).
Feel free to nominate your own work or someone else's. Multiple submissions are fine.
Send to:
belledame222 AT gmail DOT com
by October 30.
Good luck! Happy writing/reading.
Submit stuff, folks. The last couple of incarnations of the Carnival have been a bit homogenous, IMO. I think it would be lovely for more weird people to send in more interesting things this time around.
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Tired Now
http://biodiverseresistance.blogspot.com/2008/10/consenting-adult-action-network-action.html?showComment=1225051440000#c6075961875289232077
And why is it that because I am both into SM and a survivor, my own understanding of my sexuality is always in question? Why is it automatically assumed that I am reporting falsely on my own motivations? That I cannot know them and must be unaware of them?
Yes, trauma harmed me. But no, trauma did not make me magically confused and convinced that my partner loves me.
That's the thing that pisses me off the most. I mean, it would piss me off even if we were just casual buddies engaging in mutual OMG USING ONE ANOTHER for fun, too. But the fact that I am with someone who really loves me, and yet people who don't know us and are probably presuming all kinds of things about how we relate to one another can claim that what we do is all some unresolved issue... that pisses me off the most.
FFS, I don't know why I like it. But I am very tired of this idea that others know better than I do.
In the book the Courage to Heal, there was a woman who had been brutally sexually abused as a child and was into S/M. She then realized this was because of her abuse and was not healthy for her and actually managed to change her sexuality so that she could be aroused by something else (in her case, a fantasy of a healing waterfall). I wonder how many people who enjoy S/M really have similar issues to this woman?"Wonder" all you want, but why does your "wondering" always seem to involve things like... generalizing from one case you read about in one book?
And why is it that because I am both into SM and a survivor, my own understanding of my sexuality is always in question? Why is it automatically assumed that I am reporting falsely on my own motivations? That I cannot know them and must be unaware of them?
Yes, trauma harmed me. But no, trauma did not make me magically confused and convinced that my partner loves me.
That's the thing that pisses me off the most. I mean, it would piss me off even if we were just casual buddies engaging in mutual OMG USING ONE ANOTHER for fun, too. But the fact that I am with someone who really loves me, and yet people who don't know us and are probably presuming all kinds of things about how we relate to one another can claim that what we do is all some unresolved issue... that pisses me off the most.
FFS, I don't know why I like it. But I am very tired of this idea that others know better than I do.
Thursday, 23 October 2008
The Price of Pleasure: Trinity's Take
xposted from my Livejournal
Well, I saw the SM bit of The Price of Pleasure
.
I should probably be more pissed off than I am at it, but I'm really quite burnt out on other people's SM hate.
For those of you who don't know, the worst part of its depictions of SM: Images of dunking bound women in water, juxtaposed with images of torture from Pinochet's regime.
Time was, I'd be really angry at that.
Now, I'm just sad. If people want to think, and say, and profit on, the idea that I'm an inhuman monster, I can't stop them. The Goddess knows I've tried.
And I'm getting tired of it, and don't feel like engaging with anyone like that any more. If you presume I'm a bad person -- or hasten to tell me that you think I'm a lovely person but the Patriarchy made me get off on something that wasn't very nice, but you give me your holy permission to continue using whips -- I'm just done with you. Done until we meet and talk and you walk away shocked.
But I'm not throwing in any towels, here. I've got something to say. I've always got something to say.
And that is that I envy, with every fiber of my soul, people whose lives are so damn safe that they can actually, with a straight face, have the same terror of consensual sex that they have of actual torture.
Before I go on, I want to note that I do understand that some people have experienced intense violence and are triggered by SM. My beef isn't with them at all, as long as they understand that my triggers and their triggers may not be the same things. And that, hey, even if they are the same things, some people actually deal with things that are serious for them by working them out in controlled environments.
Risky? You bet.
Wrong and bad? Only if you think that you know better than some other individual person how she should deal with her trauma.
My beef? Is with whiny academics like Jensen and Dines and Whisnant and the makers of this film, for whom conflating these things is lucrative. People for whom pearl-clutching and sympathy are a profit machine: Money, attention, tenure when your arguments are shot full of holes.
My problem is them. Because they're as far removed from the reality of Pinochet's regime as they are from the reality of sadomasochists like me. Jensen doesn't know what torture is. Maybe he knows what guilt is. But all he knows is what it's like to feel bad about himself, and get attention as riveted and intense from his fans as a porn star gets from hers. And he profits from not knowing the difference.
My issue is not that he doesn't like SM. I don't give a fuck about that. My issue is that when he says shit like that, he trivializes torture.
He teaches people who have a visceral squick at SM -- and there are many such people, and I'm fine with them -- that that reaction, that revulsion, is just the same as what it means to recoil from the violent tactics of a State committing war crimes.
And young college girls -- who I again have nothing against, I was one myself ten years ago, and it feels like not so long ago at all -- eat it up. Because, with rare exceptions, they're not people with a passion for ending torture. They're nervous kids who don't want pressure from a boy. And they get to feel totally vindicated, because that's just like torture, OMG.
I envy people who know so little about real pain that they can make that parallel without retching. It's got to be nice to have lived such a safe little life that you have no idea what the difference is.
Well, I saw the SM bit of The Price of Pleasure
.I should probably be more pissed off than I am at it, but I'm really quite burnt out on other people's SM hate.
For those of you who don't know, the worst part of its depictions of SM: Images of dunking bound women in water, juxtaposed with images of torture from Pinochet's regime.
Time was, I'd be really angry at that.
Now, I'm just sad. If people want to think, and say, and profit on, the idea that I'm an inhuman monster, I can't stop them. The Goddess knows I've tried.
And I'm getting tired of it, and don't feel like engaging with anyone like that any more. If you presume I'm a bad person -- or hasten to tell me that you think I'm a lovely person but the Patriarchy made me get off on something that wasn't very nice, but you give me your holy permission to continue using whips -- I'm just done with you. Done until we meet and talk and you walk away shocked.
But I'm not throwing in any towels, here. I've got something to say. I've always got something to say.
And that is that I envy, with every fiber of my soul, people whose lives are so damn safe that they can actually, with a straight face, have the same terror of consensual sex that they have of actual torture.
Before I go on, I want to note that I do understand that some people have experienced intense violence and are triggered by SM. My beef isn't with them at all, as long as they understand that my triggers and their triggers may not be the same things. And that, hey, even if they are the same things, some people actually deal with things that are serious for them by working them out in controlled environments.
Risky? You bet.
Wrong and bad? Only if you think that you know better than some other individual person how she should deal with her trauma.
My beef? Is with whiny academics like Jensen and Dines and Whisnant and the makers of this film, for whom conflating these things is lucrative. People for whom pearl-clutching and sympathy are a profit machine: Money, attention, tenure when your arguments are shot full of holes.
My problem is them. Because they're as far removed from the reality of Pinochet's regime as they are from the reality of sadomasochists like me. Jensen doesn't know what torture is. Maybe he knows what guilt is. But all he knows is what it's like to feel bad about himself, and get attention as riveted and intense from his fans as a porn star gets from hers. And he profits from not knowing the difference.
My issue is not that he doesn't like SM. I don't give a fuck about that. My issue is that when he says shit like that, he trivializes torture.
He teaches people who have a visceral squick at SM -- and there are many such people, and I'm fine with them -- that that reaction, that revulsion, is just the same as what it means to recoil from the violent tactics of a State committing war crimes.
And young college girls -- who I again have nothing against, I was one myself ten years ago, and it feels like not so long ago at all -- eat it up. Because, with rare exceptions, they're not people with a passion for ending torture. They're nervous kids who don't want pressure from a boy. And they get to feel totally vindicated, because that's just like torture, OMG.
I envy people who know so little about real pain that they can make that parallel without retching. It's got to be nice to have lived such a safe little life that you have no idea what the difference is.
Friday, 17 October 2008
The Price of Pleasure, Deconstructed
crossposted from my LiveJournal
Ernest Greene has posted another installment of "The Price of Pleasure, Deconstructed," his series of posts over at The Blog of Pro-Porn Activism regarding a documentary on pornography which purports to be objective. As Ernest reveals, however, it's very clearly been produced with an anti-industry agenda.
In this particular post, he discusses how the documentary portrays BDSM pornography. If you think the answer to this is "not very well," you'd be right, but grossly understating. Here we go:
Ernest Greene has posted another installment of "The Price of Pleasure, Deconstructed," his series of posts over at The Blog of Pro-Porn Activism regarding a documentary on pornography which purports to be objective. As Ernest reveals, however, it's very clearly been produced with an anti-industry agenda.
In this particular post, he discusses how the documentary portrays BDSM pornography. If you think the answer to this is "not very well," you'd be right, but grossly understating. Here we go:
Full disclosure: I couldn’t possibly claim any objectivity regarding the next segment of this film, not only because I appear in it, but because it concerns a subject about which I care passionately in both my personal and professional lives. If I treat what follows as singularly despicable, you’re welcome to take that into account.
But I won’t be alone in taking offense at the egregious and slanderous distortion of reality to which TPoP audiences will be subjected. There are tens of thousands of ethical, consensual BDSM players out there who would share my revulsion if confronted with the same vile smear.
And like my lunch, it’s coming right up.
First, we get a quick glimpse of the kink.com homepage, with its teaser image of a bound girl wearing a ball-gag. Tacky Twilight-Zone-style spooky music swells in the background as we’re shown the ominous interior of a subterranean-looking dungeon studio used for kink.com’s associated site, device bondage.
A naked female performer sits bound on a concrete block with her ankles raised and some kind of dildo gizmo presumably penetrating her, although the penetration itself is blurred, contrary to previous practice, which suggests that a stolen prevue was the source material. The performer is also gagged, but sounds of whipping and screaming are laid over the soundtrack. Another naked female performer is shown locked into a vertical pillory. Nothing is happening to either, but the whipping and screaming continue.
We finally get a half-second glimpse of the noise source, a third female performer, bent over a bar-frame, her nipples decorated with weighted clamps and a dude in a black T-shirt whipping her from behind. Her expression is distressed and she squawks out a tormented “oh shit!” before we jump to the next image, lasting maybe two seconds, of yet another girl restrained in a seated in some other elaborate bondage contraption.
Now, I well understand the power of such images taken out of context, and so do the operators of kink.com, devicebondage.com and all the other sites from which this, and more content to come, has been excised. Would they appear to be anything other than horrific abuse when shown in a swirl of jump cuts? To an observer utterly unfamiliar with consensual BDSM activities, likely not, which is why we don’t get to see the performer interviews that are among the most conspicuous features of all kink.com’s presentations.
Performers talk at length, both before and after their scenes, about their individual responses to BDSM activity, their prior explorations of it, their views and feelings while engaging in it on this particular occasion and the reasons they find it enjoyable. If, as I have no doubt, the producers would claim, these interviews are faked (while all the pain and torture and shit is completely real, of course), and are utterly without credibility, why are we not allowed to see even a moment of one?
Why, once again, are the performers in these acts denied any voice other than a scream? Why are they once again depersonalized by these filmmakers in a way that pornographers would hesitate to do?
Pornographers understand something that these … humans … do not. The audience is genuinely curious about sex performers of all sorts. They want to know more about them. They want to hear them speak, to see them goofing around on the set in behind-the-scenes footage.
Yes, there are porn viewers who say hateful things to and about performers, and who undoubtedly despise them projectively for the conflicted feelings of shame and arousal they inspire. But most regular porn viewers, viewers of BDSM porn who invest a great deal in their own fantasy lives especially, consider themselves fans of performers. They do not hate them. They do not wish them harm. They want to feel they know and share something intimate, even if the intimacy is artificially created, with the individual they’re watching.
No manipulation among all this mendacious parade of trashy agit-prop, is more libelous of pornographers, porn performers and porn viewers than the systematic exclusion of any and all hints of empathy that might be part of the “pleasure” referenced in the title. It is that quality of empathy that the filmmakers, to put over their bullshit hypothesis, must relentlessly deny where pornography is concerned, as empathy and objectification are mutually exclusive in the primitively wired brains of professional porn-bashers. The very concept of such things co-existing in the minds of human beings is just altogether to complex for them to grasp.
Not to digress too far here, but BDSM sexuality depends on empathy for its erotic appeal. Even Sade observed that he couldn’t enjoy the things he did to others if he couldn’t imagine what those things would feel like if they happened to him. Indeed, most BDSM players switch back and forth between dominant and submissive roles situationally (no, I have no statistical evidence to support this opinion, merely four decades of personal familiarity) and not only imagine but also experience the sensations of both roles at one time or another.
....Lest we somehow manage to misunderstand what we are being shown, Joe Gallant returns for another fragmentary clip in which he gravely tells us that: “I hate to say it, but I feel the future of American porn is violence.” To underline this rather dubious claim, the whipping and screaming continues on the soundtrack as he speaks. Gallant likes shocking people, and sometimes I think he forgets that, with certain people, he isn’t shocking them, but rather validating precisely what they already believe.
Back to the very, very abbreviated clips from the streaming videos ripped from devicebondage.com, and then, in the single, most heinously libelous distortion of this whole misbegotten venture, we’re immediately shown a rough sketch from a human rights report on the use of immersion torture by the military regime of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet.
As if we couldn’t make the connection ourselves, the narrator grimly informs us that: “The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Just in case we still haven’t put it together, we get a few seconds each of several sequences of bound, naked, female performer getting quick dunkings for another kink.com site, waterbondage.com, with another sketch or two from the Pinochet material interspersed between.
“What,” asks the spooky-voiced narrator, makes a torture-treatment entertaining?” against a backdrop of more kink.com bondage, fucking and sensation-play snippets. “What makes an image of suffering sexually arousing?”
Please note the very careful parsing implicit in the term “torture-like treatment” as opposed to straight out calling what we’re being shown torture. I doubt that anyone who has experienced actual torture could be convinced that such a thing as a “torture-like treatment” could ever exist. Wouldn’t that be kind of similar to a “rape-like treatment?” Is it not insensitive and offensive in the same way?
Anyone who has known real violence, and here I speak from some direct knowledge, could never confuse it with something that might be “like” it. There is nothing remotely like violence of any kind. A sure sign of any metaphor turning to shit is the introduction of the V-word, as in “she was racked by violent orgasmic spasms.” As an editor, I’ve taken the blue pencil to plenty of copy like that in my day, because before I was an editor, I was a night police beat reporter. I’ve never much liked T.V. cop shows or the balletic slow-mo hokum that passes for the portrayal of violence in most entertainment media.
....As a girl gets her head pushed into a toilet, the somber Professor Wolff pitches in his two cents to the effect that “pornography, with all its destructive effects, is a sign or a reflection of the failure to question an economic system that reward enterprises for profit maximizing and endlessly market expanding.”
....Another possible explanation, one of many not addressed in this intellectual sink hole, is that what is portrayed in BDSM pornography is not, in fact, violence.
One of the performers recognizable in the kink.com content is Lorelei Lee, a sex-worker advocate, writer and co-organizer of the sex workers’ art show that recently traveled cross country, dogged by controversy as might be expected. Like most of the kink.com regulars, Lee is also a BDSM enthusiast in her private life, and has this to say about it: “Nobody likes to stub their toe or drop something heavy on their foot. You need to understand that it is a different kind of pain. You have adrenaline going and especially if you are mixing it with sex. So then there is the pain and the pleasure happening at the same time. My experience came in that context compared to if someone were to come up to you and hit you in the face in a bar during a fight.” Seems like a clear enough distinction to me, if not to someone as well educated as Dines. But wait, there’s more.
Not long ago, I interviewed another kink.com regular, Madison Young, who performs in and directs her own line of BDSM videos, in which she usually plays submissive roles. She’s also in a full-time D/s relationship with her life-partner, also a BDSM peformer-director. Here’s what she told me: “I love to be fucked while bound. Rope bondage alone is enough to get me off, but when you add a fist or a cock up my ass or pussy, my body just tumbles into a bottomless abyss of orgasm. It's a very unique sensation to be made completely open and vulnerable to your partners and be penetrated and gifted by their domination and love at the same time.”
No talk about violence from either one of these two women. No wonder the makers of TPoP don’t want performers talking for themselves.
Now if Dines had suggested that violence were being disguised as something else in order to avoid legal complications, she would have had to acknowledge that the legal suppression of pornography does, in fact, occur, and that would blow a big hole in the film’s central conceit that pornographers enjoy free reign in all aspects of modern society.
Not one word is ever spoken by anyone on the subject of adult obscenity prosecutions in this film’s entire running time. Professor Sun’s dismissive response to an audience question at a recent showing regarding why ACLU director and long-time opponent of adult obscenity prosecutions Nadine Strossen never appears in this film, even though Sun spoke with her while making it. Apparently, Strossen wanted to talk about the legal implications of pornography and censorship, and these things were not “media critic” Sun’s concerns. I’ll have a go at that one later, but let’s get back to the business at hand.
....“It (meaning pornography) will explore every kind of sexual perversion, dysfunction, misery, sadness, desperation,” proclaims Dr. Wolff, as if all these things fall neatly into the same category of “icky.” Examples from Web sites selling images of rape, large women having sex, old women having sex, midgets having sex, pregnant women having sex – you know, more icky stuff – help punch up his insistence that: “if we don’t question the pornography industry, we’re allowing the producer to create the need that he can profitably meet.”
In other words, if it weren’t for porn, nobody would ever think of such things. Pornography is what capitalism substitutes for individual sexual imaginations, sort of like something out of “Attack of the Body Snatchers.”
That’s why nothing but wholesome, vanilla sex existed before the invention of pornography, right?
Back for one more visit to that anonymous flat-block exterior, and another chat with Eric the student, who talks about the excitement of watching pornography in the moment, but if you continue watching after you’ve had an orgasm “it’s kind of just foul.”
Deep. Very deep. And about as subtle as the visual closer of a kneeling girl getting her face splattered with semen. I’ve lost count of the number of non-compliant images long ago, but I think there are more than enough of them in this show to get any actual pornographer sent up for about a hundred years. We slowly pull out of this, amid the gasping and grunting of an unseen male masturbator, until the frame freezes, signaling the merciful conclusion of our own immersion in disingenuous bullshit.
Okay, so there it all is. I don’t claim my interpretation of The Price of Pleasure is unbiased and non-judgmental. As a pornographer, I am merely unsympathetic to its point of view, but I don’t think it’s much of a threat, as it preaches to the converted and is unlikely, in its ham-handed literalness, to convince anyone else. As a filmmaker, I dislike its ineptitude too much to even enjoy it as an exercise in camp. Unlike something Ed Wood might have made, it’s not so bad it’s funny. It’s just plain bad.
But personally, I loathe it. I despise the lies it tells about me and about what I do and about my friends. I disdain it for its hypocritical hand-wringing over the fates of female porn performers who are never allowed to speak for themselves on any of the serious themes the film claims to address. I hate it for silencing them while assuming the martyr’s mantle of speaking up for views that have been silenced, when those are the views heard most often in mainstream media, on college campuses and from pulpits all over America.
The very worst thing about this film as that it denigrates the women in porn far worse than porn itself could ever manage to. It treats them the way a film made by PETA would treat farm animals: as faceless, voiceless, mindless, anonymous victims too pathetic to be regarded as individuals.
But I won’t be alone in taking offense at the egregious and slanderous distortion of reality to which TPoP audiences will be subjected. There are tens of thousands of ethical, consensual BDSM players out there who would share my revulsion if confronted with the same vile smear.
And like my lunch, it’s coming right up.
First, we get a quick glimpse of the kink.com homepage, with its teaser image of a bound girl wearing a ball-gag. Tacky Twilight-Zone-style spooky music swells in the background as we’re shown the ominous interior of a subterranean-looking dungeon studio used for kink.com’s associated site, device bondage.
A naked female performer sits bound on a concrete block with her ankles raised and some kind of dildo gizmo presumably penetrating her, although the penetration itself is blurred, contrary to previous practice, which suggests that a stolen prevue was the source material. The performer is also gagged, but sounds of whipping and screaming are laid over the soundtrack. Another naked female performer is shown locked into a vertical pillory. Nothing is happening to either, but the whipping and screaming continue.
We finally get a half-second glimpse of the noise source, a third female performer, bent over a bar-frame, her nipples decorated with weighted clamps and a dude in a black T-shirt whipping her from behind. Her expression is distressed and she squawks out a tormented “oh shit!” before we jump to the next image, lasting maybe two seconds, of yet another girl restrained in a seated in some other elaborate bondage contraption.
Now, I well understand the power of such images taken out of context, and so do the operators of kink.com, devicebondage.com and all the other sites from which this, and more content to come, has been excised. Would they appear to be anything other than horrific abuse when shown in a swirl of jump cuts? To an observer utterly unfamiliar with consensual BDSM activities, likely not, which is why we don’t get to see the performer interviews that are among the most conspicuous features of all kink.com’s presentations.
Performers talk at length, both before and after their scenes, about their individual responses to BDSM activity, their prior explorations of it, their views and feelings while engaging in it on this particular occasion and the reasons they find it enjoyable. If, as I have no doubt, the producers would claim, these interviews are faked (while all the pain and torture and shit is completely real, of course), and are utterly without credibility, why are we not allowed to see even a moment of one?
Why, once again, are the performers in these acts denied any voice other than a scream? Why are they once again depersonalized by these filmmakers in a way that pornographers would hesitate to do?
Pornographers understand something that these … humans … do not. The audience is genuinely curious about sex performers of all sorts. They want to know more about them. They want to hear them speak, to see them goofing around on the set in behind-the-scenes footage.
Yes, there are porn viewers who say hateful things to and about performers, and who undoubtedly despise them projectively for the conflicted feelings of shame and arousal they inspire. But most regular porn viewers, viewers of BDSM porn who invest a great deal in their own fantasy lives especially, consider themselves fans of performers. They do not hate them. They do not wish them harm. They want to feel they know and share something intimate, even if the intimacy is artificially created, with the individual they’re watching.
No manipulation among all this mendacious parade of trashy agit-prop, is more libelous of pornographers, porn performers and porn viewers than the systematic exclusion of any and all hints of empathy that might be part of the “pleasure” referenced in the title. It is that quality of empathy that the filmmakers, to put over their bullshit hypothesis, must relentlessly deny where pornography is concerned, as empathy and objectification are mutually exclusive in the primitively wired brains of professional porn-bashers. The very concept of such things co-existing in the minds of human beings is just altogether to complex for them to grasp.
Not to digress too far here, but BDSM sexuality depends on empathy for its erotic appeal. Even Sade observed that he couldn’t enjoy the things he did to others if he couldn’t imagine what those things would feel like if they happened to him. Indeed, most BDSM players switch back and forth between dominant and submissive roles situationally (no, I have no statistical evidence to support this opinion, merely four decades of personal familiarity) and not only imagine but also experience the sensations of both roles at one time or another.
....Lest we somehow manage to misunderstand what we are being shown, Joe Gallant returns for another fragmentary clip in which he gravely tells us that: “I hate to say it, but I feel the future of American porn is violence.” To underline this rather dubious claim, the whipping and screaming continues on the soundtrack as he speaks. Gallant likes shocking people, and sometimes I think he forgets that, with certain people, he isn’t shocking them, but rather validating precisely what they already believe.
Back to the very, very abbreviated clips from the streaming videos ripped from devicebondage.com, and then, in the single, most heinously libelous distortion of this whole misbegotten venture, we’re immediately shown a rough sketch from a human rights report on the use of immersion torture by the military regime of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet.
As if we couldn’t make the connection ourselves, the narrator grimly informs us that: “The United Nations defines torture as any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Just in case we still haven’t put it together, we get a few seconds each of several sequences of bound, naked, female performer getting quick dunkings for another kink.com site, waterbondage.com, with another sketch or two from the Pinochet material interspersed between.
“What,” asks the spooky-voiced narrator, makes a torture-treatment entertaining?” against a backdrop of more kink.com bondage, fucking and sensation-play snippets. “What makes an image of suffering sexually arousing?”
Please note the very careful parsing implicit in the term “torture-like treatment” as opposed to straight out calling what we’re being shown torture. I doubt that anyone who has experienced actual torture could be convinced that such a thing as a “torture-like treatment” could ever exist. Wouldn’t that be kind of similar to a “rape-like treatment?” Is it not insensitive and offensive in the same way?
Anyone who has known real violence, and here I speak from some direct knowledge, could never confuse it with something that might be “like” it. There is nothing remotely like violence of any kind. A sure sign of any metaphor turning to shit is the introduction of the V-word, as in “she was racked by violent orgasmic spasms.” As an editor, I’ve taken the blue pencil to plenty of copy like that in my day, because before I was an editor, I was a night police beat reporter. I’ve never much liked T.V. cop shows or the balletic slow-mo hokum that passes for the portrayal of violence in most entertainment media.
....As a girl gets her head pushed into a toilet, the somber Professor Wolff pitches in his two cents to the effect that “pornography, with all its destructive effects, is a sign or a reflection of the failure to question an economic system that reward enterprises for profit maximizing and endlessly market expanding.”
....Another possible explanation, one of many not addressed in this intellectual sink hole, is that what is portrayed in BDSM pornography is not, in fact, violence.
One of the performers recognizable in the kink.com content is Lorelei Lee, a sex-worker advocate, writer and co-organizer of the sex workers’ art show that recently traveled cross country, dogged by controversy as might be expected. Like most of the kink.com regulars, Lee is also a BDSM enthusiast in her private life, and has this to say about it: “Nobody likes to stub their toe or drop something heavy on their foot. You need to understand that it is a different kind of pain. You have adrenaline going and especially if you are mixing it with sex. So then there is the pain and the pleasure happening at the same time. My experience came in that context compared to if someone were to come up to you and hit you in the face in a bar during a fight.” Seems like a clear enough distinction to me, if not to someone as well educated as Dines. But wait, there’s more.
Not long ago, I interviewed another kink.com regular, Madison Young, who performs in and directs her own line of BDSM videos, in which she usually plays submissive roles. She’s also in a full-time D/s relationship with her life-partner, also a BDSM peformer-director. Here’s what she told me: “I love to be fucked while bound. Rope bondage alone is enough to get me off, but when you add a fist or a cock up my ass or pussy, my body just tumbles into a bottomless abyss of orgasm. It's a very unique sensation to be made completely open and vulnerable to your partners and be penetrated and gifted by their domination and love at the same time.”
No talk about violence from either one of these two women. No wonder the makers of TPoP don’t want performers talking for themselves.
Now if Dines had suggested that violence were being disguised as something else in order to avoid legal complications, she would have had to acknowledge that the legal suppression of pornography does, in fact, occur, and that would blow a big hole in the film’s central conceit that pornographers enjoy free reign in all aspects of modern society.
Not one word is ever spoken by anyone on the subject of adult obscenity prosecutions in this film’s entire running time. Professor Sun’s dismissive response to an audience question at a recent showing regarding why ACLU director and long-time opponent of adult obscenity prosecutions Nadine Strossen never appears in this film, even though Sun spoke with her while making it. Apparently, Strossen wanted to talk about the legal implications of pornography and censorship, and these things were not “media critic” Sun’s concerns. I’ll have a go at that one later, but let’s get back to the business at hand.
....“It (meaning pornography) will explore every kind of sexual perversion, dysfunction, misery, sadness, desperation,” proclaims Dr. Wolff, as if all these things fall neatly into the same category of “icky.” Examples from Web sites selling images of rape, large women having sex, old women having sex, midgets having sex, pregnant women having sex – you know, more icky stuff – help punch up his insistence that: “if we don’t question the pornography industry, we’re allowing the producer to create the need that he can profitably meet.”
In other words, if it weren’t for porn, nobody would ever think of such things. Pornography is what capitalism substitutes for individual sexual imaginations, sort of like something out of “Attack of the Body Snatchers.”
That’s why nothing but wholesome, vanilla sex existed before the invention of pornography, right?
Back for one more visit to that anonymous flat-block exterior, and another chat with Eric the student, who talks about the excitement of watching pornography in the moment, but if you continue watching after you’ve had an orgasm “it’s kind of just foul.”
Deep. Very deep. And about as subtle as the visual closer of a kneeling girl getting her face splattered with semen. I’ve lost count of the number of non-compliant images long ago, but I think there are more than enough of them in this show to get any actual pornographer sent up for about a hundred years. We slowly pull out of this, amid the gasping and grunting of an unseen male masturbator, until the frame freezes, signaling the merciful conclusion of our own immersion in disingenuous bullshit.
Okay, so there it all is. I don’t claim my interpretation of The Price of Pleasure is unbiased and non-judgmental. As a pornographer, I am merely unsympathetic to its point of view, but I don’t think it’s much of a threat, as it preaches to the converted and is unlikely, in its ham-handed literalness, to convince anyone else. As a filmmaker, I dislike its ineptitude too much to even enjoy it as an exercise in camp. Unlike something Ed Wood might have made, it’s not so bad it’s funny. It’s just plain bad.
But personally, I loathe it. I despise the lies it tells about me and about what I do and about my friends. I disdain it for its hypocritical hand-wringing over the fates of female porn performers who are never allowed to speak for themselves on any of the serious themes the film claims to address. I hate it for silencing them while assuming the martyr’s mantle of speaking up for views that have been silenced, when those are the views heard most often in mainstream media, on college campuses and from pulpits all over America.
The very worst thing about this film as that it denigrates the women in porn far worse than porn itself could ever manage to. It treats them the way a film made by PETA would treat farm animals: as faceless, voiceless, mindless, anonymous victims too pathetic to be regarded as individuals.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Guest Post: Renegade Evolution on "Verbal Degradation"
Recently an anonymous commenter left the following remarks to a post here, in whose comments I and other regulars attempted to explain BDSM to a radical feminist visitor. We stressed the "nice" parts of BDSM: the negotiation, the positive feelings it can bring up, the intimacy, etc. Our anonymous visitor felt, apparently, that we've made BDSM sound too nicey-nice:
Filthography- One Woman's take on the allure of verbal degradation & humiliation.
Right then. I preface this with saying I am no expert on BDSM. No way in hell could I talk about topping or being a sub like most of the folk here, no way I am prepared to discuss the proper way to execute suspension bondage or what is better for the task at hand, leather, synthetic, or horse hair. I'm just sort of a generalized perv who digs rough sex and a few other kinks and quirks. Two big among them being verbal degradation and humiliation. That shit I dig, in so much I have sought out a profession that often contains components of my preferred perviness (after all, if you have to work, you might as well like your job). And something that is often asked is…Why?
Well, I can't answer the why for everyone. I can't say with any sense of absolute authority why anyone other than myself would get off on being called names, used sexually, objectified, degraded and humiliated- or get off on doing those things to other people- but I can delve into why I like it, and what I think the allure is. And some of it may ring true for actual BDSM enthusiasts, and some of it may not, but hey, I'll give it a go.
One, I think for all the labels of deviant and fucked up or whatever else, expressions of non-traditional sexual behavior, kink, as it were, are ultimately cerebral, and ultimately human. People, after all, are not all happy shiny wonderful honorable wonder and light. They just aren't. People have dark sides. People have ugly sides. People have aggressive streaks and snide moments and greedy motivations. They have times in which they like to test themselves. They have seedy or sadistic or submissive or cold moments. And people can examine endlessly if they want, look at cultural modifiers and implications and influences all they want, this does not change the fact that people are wired with both admirable and less than admirable quirks and urges, and it does not change the fact that in some way or another, these things will come out. That might be in a controlled way, or an uncontrolled way, it might be exercised, it might explode. But these things are there, and I think denying them is actually pretty bad for ones health, so yeah, giving the dark side some airtime? Not a bad move in my book. Some people do this via art; some do it via writing or music. Some people sick it out into private journals or channel it into contact sports. I rather like letting loose with it in sex. Consenting sexual contact between adults, of course, but yeah…I'm big on good old fashioned hate fucking. In short, I like my sex…ugly. Ugly beautiful, but ugly. I have to be "good, caring, socially acceptable, generally polite human" every day of the week, so when it comes to fucking, I don't want to be that human, I want to be the other part. The animal part, the selfish part, the mean or cruel or dehumanized part, the not human-objectified part. Yeah, I am odd like that…
I know many people engage in verbal degradation or humiliation as part of a role playing exercise, and enjoy it because they know their partner doesn't really mean what they are saying, or the context is reclaimed or specialized, where the words and acts are not truly intended to be ugly, but rather something special and ritualized and actually, a signifier of trust or intimacy or affection between the parties involved…I'm not one of those people. When people, in a sexual context, say ugly things to me, as it were, I want them to mean it. I don't need that shit prettied up or justified. If anything "nice" need be in there, a sense of awe will do. I want what is ugly to be as real there as when I look at a flower and find it pretty. I want it real. Horrible me, I know, engaging in such things, but yeah…I like the power plays and domination and control and all the actual selfish, "using", ID driven crap to be real. Make it in color, do it like you mean it. If some guy is going to grab my hair, calling me a filthy whore, pitch me on my back, and tell me to choke on his fucking cock…it better be believable. And if I'm going to call some dude a worthless meatsack, kick out the back of his knees, and drill him up the ass with a strap on like a piece of stinking meat…I want him to believe I mean what I say…because I do. If someone is going to present me to a group of people, rip off my top and bang me on the coffee table, I don't want it to be a matter of "look at what I have, isn't she wonderful", I want it to be a matter of whomever actually wanting to humiliate me and objectify and use me. I want it to be as real and as dehumanized as consenting people can get. In fact, the only consideration I'm interested in is the consent. I don't want some guy pissing on me because it's part of some elaborate kinkster game…I want him pissing on me because at that moment, what I'm worth is being pissed on. I want it to be real. I want the ugly beautiful. I even go for being the objectified and used party far more often than not, because in the daily have to be a nice human world? Yeah, I'm a bit of a perfectionist and highly complimented control freak.
And while sure, there is some smirking nod at "transgressive"; it's not about that. Not for me anyway. I dig the seedy and brutal and mean. I want the dark side, the sneering, greedy, contempt-filled use and objectification and callous pursuit of pleasure. That, to me, is the allure. That is the attraction. That is what makes it, for me, hot. Because it's not pretty. It's not nice. It's not loving or contextualized or reclaimed or any of that. It's selfish, crass, and not subject to after-care. It's ugly and visceral and…human. That's the allure, the turn on, the thrill, what makes me wet. Because we all have dark sides. And this is where and how I chose to exercise mine. And words? Words do matter, almost as much as actions. I want them to talk to me like they hate me, and fuck me the same way.
We all have our quirks.
I'll also say here that some of the posts here strike me as unnecessarily whitewashing this sexuality. I'm not sure- perhaps our sexualities simply differ. But still, the fact is, I kink on heirarchy. Unfairness is hot. And yeah, I kink on humiliation too. All those posts about how we're actually equal, how wearing a collar can mean so many different things, rings hollow to me. I'm here because I adore power exchange dynamics and because being lead around on a leash makes me feel like a dog.I added my own comments, but I want here to post the comments of the inimitable Renegade Evolution. I would just give her guest post access, but the owner of the blog actually isn't me, so for all I post here, I'm not the one who can do that. So here are Ren's own words, unedited, as she sent them to me:
Filthography- One Woman's take on the allure of verbal degradation & humiliation.
Right then. I preface this with saying I am no expert on BDSM. No way in hell could I talk about topping or being a sub like most of the folk here, no way I am prepared to discuss the proper way to execute suspension bondage or what is better for the task at hand, leather, synthetic, or horse hair. I'm just sort of a generalized perv who digs rough sex and a few other kinks and quirks. Two big among them being verbal degradation and humiliation. That shit I dig, in so much I have sought out a profession that often contains components of my preferred perviness (after all, if you have to work, you might as well like your job). And something that is often asked is…Why?
Well, I can't answer the why for everyone. I can't say with any sense of absolute authority why anyone other than myself would get off on being called names, used sexually, objectified, degraded and humiliated- or get off on doing those things to other people- but I can delve into why I like it, and what I think the allure is. And some of it may ring true for actual BDSM enthusiasts, and some of it may not, but hey, I'll give it a go.
One, I think for all the labels of deviant and fucked up or whatever else, expressions of non-traditional sexual behavior, kink, as it were, are ultimately cerebral, and ultimately human. People, after all, are not all happy shiny wonderful honorable wonder and light. They just aren't. People have dark sides. People have ugly sides. People have aggressive streaks and snide moments and greedy motivations. They have times in which they like to test themselves. They have seedy or sadistic or submissive or cold moments. And people can examine endlessly if they want, look at cultural modifiers and implications and influences all they want, this does not change the fact that people are wired with both admirable and less than admirable quirks and urges, and it does not change the fact that in some way or another, these things will come out. That might be in a controlled way, or an uncontrolled way, it might be exercised, it might explode. But these things are there, and I think denying them is actually pretty bad for ones health, so yeah, giving the dark side some airtime? Not a bad move in my book. Some people do this via art; some do it via writing or music. Some people sick it out into private journals or channel it into contact sports. I rather like letting loose with it in sex. Consenting sexual contact between adults, of course, but yeah…I'm big on good old fashioned hate fucking. In short, I like my sex…ugly. Ugly beautiful, but ugly. I have to be "good, caring, socially acceptable, generally polite human" every day of the week, so when it comes to fucking, I don't want to be that human, I want to be the other part. The animal part, the selfish part, the mean or cruel or dehumanized part, the not human-objectified part. Yeah, I am odd like that…
I know many people engage in verbal degradation or humiliation as part of a role playing exercise, and enjoy it because they know their partner doesn't really mean what they are saying, or the context is reclaimed or specialized, where the words and acts are not truly intended to be ugly, but rather something special and ritualized and actually, a signifier of trust or intimacy or affection between the parties involved…I'm not one of those people. When people, in a sexual context, say ugly things to me, as it were, I want them to mean it. I don't need that shit prettied up or justified. If anything "nice" need be in there, a sense of awe will do. I want what is ugly to be as real there as when I look at a flower and find it pretty. I want it real. Horrible me, I know, engaging in such things, but yeah…I like the power plays and domination and control and all the actual selfish, "using", ID driven crap to be real. Make it in color, do it like you mean it. If some guy is going to grab my hair, calling me a filthy whore, pitch me on my back, and tell me to choke on his fucking cock…it better be believable. And if I'm going to call some dude a worthless meatsack, kick out the back of his knees, and drill him up the ass with a strap on like a piece of stinking meat…I want him to believe I mean what I say…because I do. If someone is going to present me to a group of people, rip off my top and bang me on the coffee table, I don't want it to be a matter of "look at what I have, isn't she wonderful", I want it to be a matter of whomever actually wanting to humiliate me and objectify and use me. I want it to be as real and as dehumanized as consenting people can get. In fact, the only consideration I'm interested in is the consent. I don't want some guy pissing on me because it's part of some elaborate kinkster game…I want him pissing on me because at that moment, what I'm worth is being pissed on. I want it to be real. I want the ugly beautiful. I even go for being the objectified and used party far more often than not, because in the daily have to be a nice human world? Yeah, I'm a bit of a perfectionist and highly complimented control freak.
And while sure, there is some smirking nod at "transgressive"; it's not about that. Not for me anyway. I dig the seedy and brutal and mean. I want the dark side, the sneering, greedy, contempt-filled use and objectification and callous pursuit of pleasure. That, to me, is the allure. That is the attraction. That is what makes it, for me, hot. Because it's not pretty. It's not nice. It's not loving or contextualized or reclaimed or any of that. It's selfish, crass, and not subject to after-care. It's ugly and visceral and…human. That's the allure, the turn on, the thrill, what makes me wet. Because we all have dark sides. And this is where and how I chose to exercise mine. And words? Words do matter, almost as much as actions. I want them to talk to me like they hate me, and fuck me the same way.
We all have our quirks.
Sunday, 12 October 2008
"the time honoured BDSM-mindset tradition"
I'm tired, need sleep, and would rather spend my energy on post-sex happies than on this sort of thing:
...so I'll just say "what the fuck is a 'time honoured BDSM-mindset tradition'?"
Friday, 10 October 2008
We've been found!
Just discovered that Demonista has posted about my post on Dworkin here.
Doesn't look like she has much to say beyond "I'm pissed." Which is, of course, totally within her rights.
ETA a bit more depth, there: I don't really have a problem with rad fems finding my "analysis of Dworkin" (I straight up said it was not an analysis but merely something that struck me that I might be wrong about. Funny how they seem to have missed that) wrongheaded. What I DO have a problem with is not hearing why so many of us in that thread feel that Dworkin's way of saying what she did is hurtful and dismissive to us. That just bugs me. Why is it that people have to lionize her like that? Is it impossible to say, "hey, this is really sweeping and can get obnoxious, but it's also really inspiring to me and has helped me and I love it?"
If she really wants to fisk my post, doing two things would make her post more effective:
1. Explaining why the pieces I quote there, in which she mentions liking sadomasochistic games and feeling profoundly inspired by The Story of O (kind of amusing how she and some other feminists consider that book so full of meaning, yet a lot of actual sadomasochists I know weren't big on it), should not be interpreted as having liked submission at one point in her life.
2. Responding directly to the reactions of ours that piss her off. It strikes me as very odd that she's allowed to feel insulted by some of us attacking her idol but we're infuriating for feeling that her idol attacked us first.
Also, she calls me to task for not having read entire books at the time. [Edit: Looking back, she was quoting someone else. Whoops. My mistake there.] Since then, I have read Intercourse, but I have not actually read the books that those snippets come from. However, since many radical feminists refer curious people/one another to the Andrea Dworkin Online Library as a website that gives representative samples of her work, I don't think I've sinned as horribly in this regard as people who cherry-pick Dworkin quotes so that it appears she said things like the famous "all sex is rape" misquotation.
(Though I will say that I do think that accepting her theories CAN lend itself to conflating sex with rape. Having read Intercourse, I don't think that she herself does, but more than a few of her ideological daughters make that mistake, some of them unapologetically.)
Doesn't look like she has much to say beyond "I'm pissed." Which is, of course, totally within her rights.
ETA a bit more depth, there: I don't really have a problem with rad fems finding my "analysis of Dworkin" (I straight up said it was not an analysis but merely something that struck me that I might be wrong about. Funny how they seem to have missed that) wrongheaded. What I DO have a problem with is not hearing why so many of us in that thread feel that Dworkin's way of saying what she did is hurtful and dismissive to us. That just bugs me. Why is it that people have to lionize her like that? Is it impossible to say, "hey, this is really sweeping and can get obnoxious, but it's also really inspiring to me and has helped me and I love it?"
If she really wants to fisk my post, doing two things would make her post more effective:
1. Explaining why the pieces I quote there, in which she mentions liking sadomasochistic games and feeling profoundly inspired by The Story of O (kind of amusing how she and some other feminists consider that book so full of meaning, yet a lot of actual sadomasochists I know weren't big on it), should not be interpreted as having liked submission at one point in her life.
2. Responding directly to the reactions of ours that piss her off. It strikes me as very odd that she's allowed to feel insulted by some of us attacking her idol but we're infuriating for feeling that her idol attacked us first.
Also, she calls me to task for not having read entire books at the time. [Edit: Looking back, she was quoting someone else. Whoops. My mistake there.] Since then, I have read Intercourse, but I have not actually read the books that those snippets come from. However, since many radical feminists refer curious people/one another to the Andrea Dworkin Online Library as a website that gives representative samples of her work, I don't think I've sinned as horribly in this regard as people who cherry-pick Dworkin quotes so that it appears she said things like the famous "all sex is rape" misquotation.
(Though I will say that I do think that accepting her theories CAN lend itself to conflating sex with rape. Having read Intercourse, I don't think that she herself does, but more than a few of her ideological daughters make that mistake, some of them unapologetically.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I think it’s worth remembering that people who comment and criticise blog moderation policies are doing so because of their own political (whether they personally refer to it as ‘political’ or not) agenda. Ironically (or not), these are the same people who accuse those who refuse to publish their comments of deleting their comments due to the blogger’s own political ideas. They would prefer it, of course, if we sauntered over to their blogs in order to pick fights, as then their accusations of our unfairness would seem to have some basis. But we don’t. So they have to troll us instead.
Women are always told to be nice to those who abuse, and then when they experience abuse and complain about it, they are told that they ‘encouraged’ the abuse, or (in the time honoured BDSM-mindset tradition) that they did not respect their own boundaries and are therefore to blame, rather than the abuser. We should not have to put up with this shit on our blogs either.